Why we lost to Vanderbilt
- Thread starter Islandbird
- Start date
Better players, better execution, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better coaching.
Vandy had better style points but we were right with them until Sellers went down. Neither team was going to win that game with their backup QB carrying the load and that's what happened.
We were a helluva lot better and we had a different OC.
Last edited:
Yep. The boo birds don't want to hear it though.
Alot of these posters are far more comfortable when we're losing.
It feels like home to them.
With Botman and his 20+ accounts out in front leading the way....
Vicissitudes are part of sport. What didn't happen can never be exchanged for what did.
The better team won. The physical disadvantage was obvious. Yes, the game would have been more competitive.
To piggy back off of another thread, LS is not a first round QB…yet. He makes some strange throws sometimes, but as you can see from Saturday, he is good enough to put is on his back and give us a chance.
I don’t know if we win if he doesn’t go down. I do think we have a good shot, and certainly score more than 7. We did move the ball fairly well the him in. The pick hurt, but that was a good call by Vandy. Not sure many QBs would expect the nose to drop into coverage inside the red zone.
It seems as if this group has approached the season buying into the hype. We seemed to have approached all three games like we were owed the victory.
I don’t know if we win if he doesn’t go down. I do think we have a good shot, and certainly score more than 7. We did move the ball fairly well the him in. The pick hurt, but that was a good call by Vandy. Not sure many QBs would expect the nose to drop into coverage inside the red zone.
It seems as if this group has approached the season buying into the hype. We seemed to have approached all three games like we were owed the victory.
Agree. I saw nothing that would indicate that we would have won that game, we were getting beat in the trenches and were all night. Sellers ran for his life all of last year and it's even worse this year. We lost our best players on defense and our best running backs and not sure about the OL, but they were bad last year and still are. Honestly, we have a lot of weaknesses. But, you can't win consistently when you get beat in the trenches and Seller's passing skills and reading defenses are not where they need to be. That said, the play calling and blocking scheme needs to change to overcome the lack of OL skills.
Without several miracle plays we would have lost that game even with Sellers, he has been inconsistent to say the least this year. Agree, we have never had great OLs but last year we had a much better D, better running backs, and possibly a better secondary, hard to tell at this point. But we got beat in the trenches much of the night, can't win with all these issues, and not impressed with the play calling either. But honestly, is any of this a surprise this year?
We were losing with Sellers in. The big issue was the same thing it has been for years: poor OL play. Teasley is one of the best recruiters we have ever had, but his units do not develop or perform well (other than a game or two per year at end of season). At this point, if we can't bring someone else in as the on-field OL coach and let him simply recruit, his unit's lack of success over the years is hurting us more than the talent is helping us. We're ranked near the bottom of the country year in and year out with one of the most talented lines we have ever had.
Isn't this being a little presumptuous though?
We had played basically dead even through almost 2 quarters until he got hurt.
Stats were almost identical at that juncture.
We had the INT in the red zone which would have put us up.
We were getting the ball to start the 2nd half.
We were playing at home and have largely been a 2nd half team until Beamer.
And I think we can all agree that if Pavia had gone down when Sellers went down, we would have rolled over them.
I agree we haven't looked as good as last season and there's good reason for that -- we lost a bunch of guys to the NFL for example.
However, for some to state that Vandy was vastly superior on any level is steeped in Beamer Derangement Syndrome.
You're crystal ballling King. The idea that this was some sort of vastly superior coaching job is nonsense too. We lost a bunch of talent and they had a bunch of seniors around Pavia. Their coaches had no answer for us last year.
How about this for some profound hindsight?
If we had scored more points than Vandy, we would have won.
I think it's more of a case where their coach, "can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."
They had fewer players last year and we had more. Now the roles are reversed. The knowledgeable see it.
They had their star QB for the entire game and we did not.
So why all of the gushing about superior coaching pre and post?
Clark Lea had one 9 out of 36 games and 2 out of 24 games in the SEC before he landed Pavia.
Last edited:
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. They won and no matter how you want to word it the game ended lopsided. Oh and I'm going out on a limb and predict Sellers doesn't suit up this week.They had their star QB for the entire game and we did not.
So why all of the gushing about superior coaching pre and post?
Clark Lea had one 9 out of 36 games and 2 out of 24 games in the SEC before he landed Pavia.
They obviously won. I'm disputing the piece about how Vandy was the vastly superior team that the Beamer Derangement Fanbase is now hanging their hat on. My contention is that if Pavia had gone down instead of Sellers, we win that game easily. It was a star player story.
I'll agree with that. Watching a replay of some of the plays, we were outplayed and or mostly out coached. It was a matter of time before Sellers went down with an injury.
As someone mentioned above, they had better style points.
However, when Sellers went out the game was right there for our taking.
The stats were dead even, we were getting the ball to start the 2nd half, and we were playing at home.
Don't believe many would have wanted to bet on Vandy winning that game a minute or so before Sellers went down.
We'll see if they can get it back in Missouri.
That was one I thought we would likely lose coming into the season.
Nice artwork. Our "star" quarterback had swooned some even before this game and suffered several sacks - and been tackled in the end zone for a safety. As for the game just passed, all the massaging in the world is not going to resurrect the desiccated carcass. But you go ahead with pumping on that lifeless chest. I'm turning my attention to the minefield ahead.They had their star QB for the entire game and we did not.
So why all of the gushing about superior coaching pre and post?
Clark Lea had one 9 out of 36 games and 2 out of 24 games in the SEC before he landed Pavia.
Game stats are the refuge of losers. I'm sure the UF fans are feeling great about the LSU game since they dominated the stats.
Like my stepfather says about the scores of games "they don't ask how, they just ask how many".
You're missing the narrative but this is nothing new for this account.
You're one that Botman should probably keep in the basement for most of the year.
Thanks King.
We look forward to learning more about the impeccable Drinkwitz this week.
For that matter, Tennessee should have beaten Georgia, but I'm certain their fans aren't mollified any.
Shockingly, UGA led in all stats except passing yards and yards per play. Watching the game, it looked like Tenn was dominant.
Maybe, but Vandy had the better team and the far better coach. That latter part is a serious problem that cannot be fixed by Beamer. Best he can do is copy Dabo's early success and hire some highly paid coordinators who can actually do the job. Beamer isn't beating anyone in the SEC if it comes down to him against the other head coach.
So you're now lighting up this thread in seeking attention fashion., "Atlanta Cock"?
Congrats - You're officially on the BOT watch list.
There is no way to prove either way. All speculation.
From what I saw, it looked like they were better along the line than we were, but I am not a PFF grader.
My original prediction was 24 - 17 Vandy based upon what I saw from both teams' prior games.
They won 31 - 7, hence the star player injury.
My speculation is as good as yours. Bottom line, we lost.
It is speculation but their entire team is built around Pavia just like ours is built around Sellers.
We lost a ton of talent coming into the season and Vandy's stars are aligning this year.
However, there's no way they beat us with out their start dealer.
Lea had won only 2 games in 24 attempts in the SEC before Pavia arrived.
He was Lea's life raft.
It was a great football game, a spectator's delight. Likewise ND - A&M. I loved the outcome of that one.
Offense. Offense. Offense.
Not just play calling, I wish it was that simple. We simply DO NOT have an offensive system that works for where we are. It doesn't suit our talent or utilize it properly. I wonder if we even have a coherent system? Is it just a playbook?
Not just play calling, I wish it was that simple. We simply DO NOT have an offensive system that works for where we are. It doesn't suit our talent or utilize it properly. I wonder if we even have a coherent system? Is it just a playbook?